Scrap the Armed Forces Special Powers Act

Irom Sharmila offers yet another occasion to talk about the need to scrap the Armed Forces Special Powers Act or AFSPA for short. It is not just anti-democratic, it also contributes to violent opposition to the Indian state, leading to yet more authoritarian responses from the state. It must be scrapped, to strengthen India’s democracy.

What is the rationale for blanket immunity for security forces of the kind offered by AFSPA? There is none. In a policing context, if the police shoot and kill civilians, it is not as if the officers involved are immediately drawn and quartered. If they acted for justifiable reasons, they have complete immunity from penal action. Why do any other kind of security personnel need any protection beyond what the local police get in an area that has not been declared disturbed?

AFSPA allows security forces to arrest a person without a warrant, enter any premises on suspicion of unlawful activity, take possession of any property deemed to be stolen or illegal and to kill those suspected to be engaged in violent activity. And security force personnel will have immunity from prosecution for “anything done or purported to be done in exercise of powers conferred by this Act.” They can be prosecuted with permission from the central government, however.

It is ironic that the law itself accords immunity even for those acts that are carried out purportedly in accordance with the Act, besides for those acts that are carried out in accordance with the Act. In other words, those who drafted the law well anticipated the eventuality that many acts would be perpetrated that can only be purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act and cannot be claimed to be done in accordance with the Act.

Rape and pillage and framing of innocent people have been carried out with the protection of this law, whose conformity with the basic democratic spirit of the Indian Constitution is wholly in doubt.

Security forces need commitment to the values of the Constitution and respect for human rights, not the right to trample on these rights with impunity. Otherwise, the very sovereignty they defend with their use of force will cease to be sovereignty of the people, but of an oligarchy.

Of course, security personnel need protection from prosecution for acts of coercion carried out in extreme circumstances. But they need this on par with what policemen enjoy, not one iota more nor one iota less.

A law like AFSPA befits a colonial government, not a democracy. The use of AFSPA in states on the periphery of the country only serves to convince their populace that New Delhi is an occupying, colonial power in their region. This only helps keep these areas disturbed forever, not to resolve the political problems that created the disturbance to begin with.

The political leadership of the UPA found itself incapable of overruling the army’s objection to scrapping AFSPA. It was a weak political leadership, admittedly. Will the stronger political leadership of the present government find the courage to set aside the army’s objections and scrap AFSPA?

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Comments on this post are closed now

Scrap the Armed Forces Special Powers Act

Irom Sharmila offers yet another occasion to talk about the need to scrap the Armed Forces Special Powers Act or AFSPA for short. It is not just anti-democratic, it also contributes to violent opposition to the Indian state, leading to yet more authoritarian responses from the state. It must be scrapped, to strengthen India’s democracy.

What is the rationale for blanket immunity for security forces of the kind offered by AFSPA? There is none. In a policing context, if the police shoot and kill civilians, it is not as if the officers involved are immediately drawn and quartered. If they acted for justifiable reasons, they have complete immunity from penal action. Why do any other kind of security personnel need any protection beyond what the local police get in an area that has not been declared disturbed?

AFSPA allows security forces to arrest a person without a warrant, enter any premises on suspicion of unlawful activity, take possession of any property deemed to be stolen or illegal and to kill those suspected to be engaged in violent activity. And security force personnel will have immunity from prosecution for “anything done or purported to be done in exercise of powers conferred by this Act.” They can be prosecuted with permission from the central government, however.

It is ironic that the law itself accords immunity even for those acts that are carried out purportedly in accordance with the Act, besides for those acts that are carried out in accordance with the Act. In other words, those who drafted the law well anticipated the eventuality that many acts would be perpetrated that can only be purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act and cannot be claimed to be done in accordance with the Act.

Rape and pillage and framing of innocent people have been carried out with the protection of this law, whose conformity with the basic democratic spirit of the Indian Constitution is wholly in doubt.

Security forces need commitment to the values of the Constitution and respect for human rights, not the right to trample on these rights with impunity. Otherwise, the very sovereignty they defend with their use of force will cease to be sovereignty of the people, but of an oligarchy.

Of course, security personnel need protection from prosecution for acts of coercion carried out in extreme circumstances. But they need this on par with what policemen enjoy, not one iota more nor one iota less.

A law like AFSPA befits a colonial government, not a democracy. The use of AFSPA in states on the periphery of the country only serves to convince their populace that New Delhi is an occupying, colonial power in their region. This only helps keep these areas disturbed forever, not to resolve the political problems that created the disturbance to begin with.

The political leadership of the UPA found itself incapable of overruling the army’s objection to scrapping AFSPA. It was a weak political leadership, admittedly. Will the stronger political leadership of the present government find the courage to set aside the army’s objections and scrap AFSPA?